CHARLES E. SCHUMER

NEW YORK

CO-ITTEES:

BANKING

FINANCE

JUDICIARY

RULES

tinittd ~tatfS ~rnat£

WASHINGTON, DC 20510

January 19,2006

Dr. Paul L. Ziemer, Chairman

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

4676 Columbia Parkway, MS: C-46

Cincinnati, OH 45226

-25~Oli"t S;R;CVO

Dear Dr. Ziemer:

I write to express my opposition to the recent changes in the Bethlehem Steel site profile,

which the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (the Board) passed on

January 9,2006 during a conference call, and to urge the Board to reconsider this

decision at its next slated meeting. This unwise decision threatens to leave Bethlehem

Steel off the Board's agenda next week, and, in effect, denies compensation to the great

majority of potentially deserVing former Bethlehem Steel workers.

I understand the Board passed, with the Board's consultant Sanford Cohen and

Associates (SC&A) in agreement, a motion which stated that based on the current

information, the Bethlehem Steel site profile, ".. .is acceptable for use in the NIOSH dose

reconstruction program." This motion passed despite flaws found by SC&A in the site

profile review. Due to this action, Bethlehem Steel is not slated to be on the agenda

during the full meeting of the Board on January 24 to 26, 2006, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee,

unless new comments raise significant issues to the site profile.

It has come to my attention that significant new evidence was submitted to Larry Elliott,

NIOSH's Director of Compensation, on January 10, 2006 from a representative of the

Bethlehem Steel Action Group. I have also enclosed their letter for your reference. In

light of the new evidence raised in the letter, and the lingering differences between

NIOSH and SC&A regarding oronasal breathing, ingestion intakes, and the resuspension

model, I urge you to reconsider the decision made on January 9,2006, and confirm

Bethlehem Steel will be discussed at the January meeting. This new evidence should be

thoroughly reviewed to ensure the recordS NIOSH has on Bethlehem Steel are accurate

and complete.

Since the passage of the Energy Employees Occupational llness Compensation Act

(EEOICP A) on October 30, 2000, I have spoken with and received correspondence from

many fonner workers and the sons and daughters of fonner workers at Bethlehem Steel,

and have devoted significant efforts to fighting for the compensation they deserve. They

have told me heartbreaking stories of friends and loved ones dying of debilitating cancers

at a young age, and they have become extremely frustrated with the seemingly endless

PLEASE RESPOND To THE FOLLOWING OFFICE:

0 -: 0 - 0 ~ - ,., 0 L ~ _v_- - leo 0'-" BIA'-'"N6 fODEJIAL o...c. e.JI~ 111 WEST HURON l' C

ROtW- 15_S.-T ~B20 1

ALBANY,NY12207 ROOM B6 Bu..~. NY 14202 I

1518) 431..«)70 s..O..-TON, NY '~1 (71el -"111 I

«<11) 772-4109

U ItuD8ONVAU5Y -_. U : 0 =oc u -- 0 h_.- P.O.SoxA ..uUAeNWAVP!AZA 151TItIIIAVfMJE I00STAT!~E£T 1005ouTH~ 313HARTSENA1i~BUlUJ~

RED tioofC. NY 12571 46 r..ELA- ROAD S~ 1702 ROOM 3040 ROOM 841 WA5NNQTON. DC ~10

914) 28S-9741 ROOM 3OON NEw Y.-. NY 10017 AocttESTEA. NY 14814 s-o,.., NY 13281 (202)224-6642

845)~3 MoLVIU£. NY 11747 (212)-- (718)- (316}_71 TDO:(202I224-0420

(8311-78 TDO:(212}-.7681 * http://schumer.senate.goY
bureaucracy. and controversial dose reconstructions. The time is now to bring justice to

these Cold War heroes.

I look forward to your quick reply. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to

contact me at (202) 224-6542.

Sincerely,

G Schumer,:)~:I 

United States Senator

.t

Enclosure
Dear Mr .lliott,

The Department of Labor in 2001 reported that anyone that had cancer and

worked at Bethlehem Steel between 1949 and 1952 was eligible for compensation. In

2002, approximately 10 months later, we were informed the next step is dose

reconstruction and then sent out generic questionnaires which would clearly qualify

Bethlehem Steel Company claimants in many of the DOE sites in the country. In March

of 2003, our TBD was approved by NIOSH without the site profile being completed.

Sixteen months later. they finally contacted the site experts for expert worker input. Two

months after that, when we requested the Simonds Saw site profile, (being that that

information we were told formed the bases for the B.S.C. TBD) we were also told by

ORAU that Simonds Saw profile was not completed at that time. When we requested the

air sample data, we received incomplete sample data from ORAU. In many other

facilities where there were not enough records available to constIUct a dose

reconstruction, NIOSH simply classifies them as a Special Exposure Cohort. At

Bethlehem Steel, NIOSH decided to go to Simond Saw for surrogate information. At the

time our TBD was approved by NIOSH, no other facility had a completed TBD or a site

profile and dose reconstIUction. "Bethlehem Steel" - Guinea pigs again, as in 1949

through 1952. As we were told this dose reconstJUction is a pilot program for many other

facilities in the United States.

In 1949

VJ9~?with ~dOUs .'ma~aIs with utter disregard for the safety of their lives. Now,

56ye,ats)ater, we are being treated with the same attitude. Mr. Elliott, if you recall our

illSt worker input meeting was at the request ofB.S.C. claimants, to give our insight on

we.' ..- Wi' ,. -. . - .

~ - " . g: 9cc - <?~, e:~~ 04 p:m: was agreed to. :N10siI gave their Power Point

your presentation so we would have time to give some worker input. This was 14

months after the TBD was approved by NIOSH. We had approximately 1 hour worker

input time. Is this one of the numerous opportunities that you are referring to in your

response? I would like to note that the claimants and survivors did share the cost of this

meeting hall. We were told to send in the invoice. We did, and never got compensated.

What type of government agency would treat these claimants with such malice and try to

take credit for a worker input meeting?

This meeting led to the next worker input meeting in Hamburg, NY on July 1,

2004 approximately 16 months after our TBD was approved. The meeting lasted

approximately 3 hours. At this meeting we were told that the TBD had taken most all of

our information into consideration. The SC&A representative that attended this meeting

took notes and throughout the meeting repeatedly stopped our claimants and asked them

to repeat different statements. He was the only one to show any real concern for the

claimants. We had approximately 20 expert site workers present which allowed each

worker at best, 3 minutes.
The next meeting with the workers took place in Buffalo, NY on January 12,

2005. Again, a 2 hour workshop meeting. At this meeting we had a plant superintendent

who worked there during the 1949-1952 Uranium period. He was a Superintendent of the

10" Bar Mill at the time of the Uranium rollings. I was sitting next to a NIOSH

executive, when this man was giving testimony. The NIOSH executive asked me for the

Superintendents name and telephone number because he stated that, "That man has a

wealth of knowledge, and he (the executive) would like to make arrangement to speak

with him." I have not heard another word from the NIOSH

executive to this day (another worker input meeting).

In May 25-26, 2004 I received an invitation to attend a dose reconstruction

workshop in Cincinnati. I felt a better understanding of dose reconstruction would be of

benefit when working with MOSH. I called to make aITangements o attend and was

asked "who did I get this information from?" At that time, I was told that they had no

room left. All reservations were full, but they were sony. Early the next morning. I

received a call saying that 2 or 3 people had canceled and I would be able to attend.

When I arrived at the meeting there were approximately 20 empty chairs. Does this

reflect the attitude of our government 56 years ago? Not much concern for the workers.

IfNIOSH would review the picture I sent them of the compete 10" Bar Mill, it

plainly shows that it would be impossible to decontaminate itin one day. If dust or large

articles were on the ratters with tit ventilai1onifcoilldl1avesra~Mu theref6tda "

"'!.';;"t;i!'",V -, ; P , y. doWilin layers. Monday's dust, Tuesday's dust etc. certainly didn't come down m .

percentages.

~~m~<lfn~~t~'a7)1Pi~6j' taken' at Siinond' Saw m 1948:~D6es ~yone re~y ~~ c ~W ~~d:B:ethle ~m~~ ~~

Company not have this health hazard corrected for four years? Documents show that the

water cooled bearings of the high speed roller washed off the protective coating, but this

would be corrected at Fernald. The dragging of the rods 35 ft. is far exceeded by pushing,

rolling and dragging the Uranium rods across the 28,000 sq. ft. metal Cooling Bed. Do

you really think that that didn't knock off your protective coating? Look at the attached

photo. Note the amount of rods on that bed. What measures were taken to prevent

extensive oxide from accumulating in the vicinity of the Cooling Bed? None at B.S.C.

Mr. Elliott as you well know NIOSH has continually stood fast that the highest

level of contamination is at the Rollers. It is my understanding the new theory is the

highest point of contamination has moved to the Shear area. How would this be knoW]

there weren't any BZ samples at the rollers?
As for the Cooling Bed, NIOSH, after 4 years had no knowledge of it's location,

purpose or even of it's existence. This was evident when I was requested to describe and

send them a sketch defining it. This bed was 28,000 sq. ft. , 56,000 including the bed

above located in the middle of the 10" Bar Mill. This can be seen in the photo I

submitted to NIOSH showing the whole Uranium facility. The photos also show a

worker grinding operation which was performed on billets before and after rolling. I am

not aware ifNIOSH ever released these photos or not.

Again in 2005, I received an updated air sample data survey. None of the

infomlation showed a B.Z. sample taken in the Salt Bath area. Also the adding of

additional rollings, 35 undocumented do not in any way represent what actually occurred

during these experimental procedures. Experiment (any action or process undertaken to

discover something not yet known, any action or process designed to find out whether

something is effective or valid). This was the known process P.erfOmled at B.S.C.

For NIOSH to assume what transpired during those 35 undocumented rollings is not

realistic. As shown at (1) documented rolling, the first 30 billets rolled did not have a

temperature reading because of faulty gauges. What temp did these rods have 1200, 1800

or 2100 degrees and no air data survey? What percentage of exposure were these

unprotected workers exposed to? You can certainly get figures out of a book, but there

not indicative of the state-of-the-art experimental facility. 75% of the rollings at B.S.C.

have no documentation at all. Again NIOSH takes the benefit of the doubt.

Wjth an open :~

;,"ifi"'"'f~'i ,c " p pertieso(Ui-alrium but 1/25/2005 findiIigs #2iefetS

t9~eWfect heating applied to the billets at Simond Saw produced excessive levels of

3frbbriiecontatninatio~ so the direct .flame as Simond Saw shows that open flame could . . . . . t , . , ~"...,- --~." ~-~~ . ,,- .. ~ -"'. ,~ oeen "00011 cWith"atorch, With niuchhigher exposure to the unprotected worker. No

were some of the highest air samples measured at Simond Saw.

Jan. 25,2005 finding #3 NIOSH document states "Off-Nomlal Occurrences, such

as cobbles or salt bath leaks, resulted in the shut down of the rolling mill process".

During these shutdown periods, the generation of airborne activity would cease. "What

kind of rationale is this? The boiling salt bath and the 1200 degree rods on the 28,000

sq.ft. Cooling Bed, and the Shearing procedure would continue to operate. Also, if you

stopped the rollers, what would be the need to clean up if all the airborne activity would

stop?

Jan. 25, 2005 Finding #2 states that according to the workers only Finishing work

was processed at Bethlehem Steel Company. You state that the Simond Saw roughing

proce4ss was more likely to generate higher levels of contamination, but no document

was ever brought forward to verify this. Obviously, that's why you say "more likely."

Is there any documentation showing exactly what ventilation was in place at Simond Saw

in 1948? There is government documents that were sent to me by NIOSH, 40 page
document (plus or minus). Page 4 or 23 that states "it was proposed that new rolls with

the passes to be used by National Lead to be purchased for the roughing and finishing

mills at Bethlehenl Steel. These were requested for Sept. 1." (Office Menlorandum)

"United States Government." I believe this is proof that there was roughing at

Bethlehem.

The original TBD for B.S.C. did not include Ingestion in the 03/30/2003 version.

Even the docwnent of 5/13/1949 HW 19066 "Health Problems Associated with the

investigation of off plant Uranium Rolling. Pg. 8 "From observation it seemed that a

possible significant factor should be observed in appraising the worker's Uraniwn intake

and excretion values was the ingestion ofmetaI." With the resources, personnel, money,

and time of an issue so important could be overlooked, what else can be missing ftom our

TBD?

The (Wayne Ridge Letter of June 9, 1976) the Government states "our procedur~

for the retention of records have resulted in the removal and destruction of files not

specifically identified for historic purpose." The Bethlehem Steel contract began in

1949.

The following reports including the Wawe Ridge Letter refer to the cleanup of the

facility .

There isn:

Prelimfuary Survey of Bethlehem Steel March 1980

Elimination R~9U (No bate) foiB_ethlehciti Steel Yckawanna; N. Y.

!""," gI g Y ~ 1976

't one document With a signature on it. Who is accountable for their contents?

0

~i;';~if

~Bethl~~eel~~l!l~itec-exp~~c.'c~- ~~~~=c~cc~- c.~~--~===c~~

being judged 'here is double standard by which Bethlehem Steel claimants are

Ed Walker

Bethlehem Steel Action GronD